Wednesday, July 23, 2014

I make no apology for my title. The Jews have much to answer for, especially the Jews of Israel – and there’s no letting up.

I write from England, this precious stone set in the silver sea, where our forefathers were nourished on the blessed freedoms of a robust paganism. We relished our ever-inventive superstitions and gloried in unbridled passion. We made our choice between 14 gods, worshipped devils, and were in lifelong bondage to an inexorable fate known sinisterly as Wyrd. Standards there were, agreeably low.

Sure, hopeless ruffians were we, shackled to a changeless decree of the gods, but we felt mostly good about our brute lives and ourselves. We were all in the same boat, no better and no worse than the next bloke.

However, like the distant rumblings of an approaching rainstorm, the Jewish Messiah’s teachings had reached our shores in the 1st century, and their voice was growing louder. The Jewish Messiah and the Jewish Bible would become our nemesis and break open our little world.

What followed is well documented and one may Google for the relevant facts, but, for us, it meant that we could no longer enjoy the life of unbridled paganism. The bar of morality had been raised. It was a rude awakening; our stone of shelter was overturned.

Now I am reminded of a friend back in the 70's, who was employed for a few days in a factory that manufactured long, electro-plated metal rods. Turning out nearly 300 of these things every day, he was approached by the Foreman. "Look 'ere, son you're working too 'ard. The rest never do more’n 250 and you're makin’ ‘em look bad. Before we know it, everybody will be expected to do 300. Now, toe the line, there's a good lad." He was in no forgiving mood.

Similarly, are we seriously expected to forgive the Jews for turning out more ethics and ever-higher standards of morality than the rest of us? Things like love your neighbour as yourself, in place of the good old traditional do it to him before he does it to you ethic. It takes only one do-gooder to make the rest of us look bad. We might be living under a stone, but it's our stone.

20 centuries have passed and we’ve managed, with varying degrees of success, to not merely get used to this higher morality, but also to convince ourselves that we thought of it in the first place and that it had nothing to do with the Jews, their Messiah and their Bible. But prior to this Jewish education we were like Caliban in the unwholesome fen, satisfied with his water with berries in't. Ah, the savage at liberty.

We know who’s to blame for this, the Jews. What were they trying to do, for Pete's sake, bring heaven to Earth? Behold this dreamer cometh. If not for the Jews, God would most likely have remained in heaven, His Place, and never come to Earth to make us uncomfortable, by awakening in us a desire for more than berries in water.

Heaven is God's and the Earth would be ours, if not for the Jews. Unforgiveable.

Now, back in 1948, between 400,000 and 700,000 Arabsvacated their homes on the advice of their warring brethren from neighbouring lands. But, between 1948-72, 820,000 Jews were forcibly driven from their homes in the Arab countries, 200,000 finding refuge in Europe and North America, most of the others, in the State of Israel. The Muslims have sucked at the breast of the UN for 66 years whilst the Jews, from Day One, were fed and sheltered at the expense of their fellow Jews. And where are they now? Look for them and their children in the halls of academia, on the stage, in the hospitals, in the hi-tech milieu and in the Apollo Space Shuttle.

Those vexatious Jews have pride and dignity! They make the rest of us feel bad whilst the Arabs are enough to make any of us feel good about ourselves.

There was a glimmer of light when I heard the State of Israel excoriated for being apartheid. Ah, a serious flaw, I thought, but was disappointed, for the Arabs of Israel have full citizenship and enjoy equal rights with their Jewish neighbours, in fact the Arabs of neighbouring countries receive free medical care in Jewish hospitals.

And, as if this were not enough, in response to thousands of rockets lobbed from Gaza to Israel, Jews are putting their own young people at risk in a ground offensive in order to spare the lives of possibly innocent Palestinians. What’s more, they actually drop thousands of leaflets to warn the Gazan citizenry to flee the area of an impending attack. Then, they fire a rubber warning missile to knock on the roof five minutes before the real one. Finally, if the women and children have not departed, the Israelis call off the strike.

Furthermore, Israel have opened an emergency clinic near the battle zone to treat injured... Palestinians! This includes a gynecology unit. Isn’t that childbirth?!

Am I dreaming? Somebody pinch me.

During the bombing of Dresden in 1945, it took a mere 3 days, to drop 3,900 tons of high explosives and incendiary (none of them rubber), destroying two-and-a-half square miles of the city centre and killing between 22,700 and 25,000 people, mainly civilians. Compare this with the 11 days which the Israelis have taken to kill 274 people, despite their having more powerful weaponry than we had in the 40s. The Israeli restraint is downright perplexing and irritating to the hypocrites in the UN.

Did we warn Dresden? No, of course not! Was a dummy hydrogen bomb dropped in advance of the real one? No! Did we burn people, blow them to smithereens, starve them? Yes. And we didn’t issue an apology to Germany or Japan for disproportionate warfare! War was war, and we insisted on ending it sooner rather than later. How do you respond to an enemy that vows to destroy you and your way of life, rape your wife and enslave your children? You kill 'em, that's what you do! And because we were all doing it, nobody felt bad about it.

But these irksome Jews, with their raising the bar ever higher, are attempting to civilise war itself, resisting the temptation to carpet bomb and visit hell on the enemy once and for all, relinquishing the crucial element of surprise by leafleteering and calling Palestinians on their cell phones first.

And the torn metal from the missiles which land in Israel? Transformed into works of art to adorn your mantlepiece. They seek to bring order and civilisation right up to the gates of Gehenna itself. If it were possible, hell itself would be abolished by these sons of David.

Col. Kemp, a British officer who served in all the major conflicts between 1977-2006, said of the Israelis, "Based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare."

The Jews are again leading the way to higher ground, making us uncomfortable with our double standards and our odious hypocrisy.

Monday, July 21, 2014

In my spare moments, which are few and far between, I have often imagined what the ideal socialist-communist utopia envisioned by Progressives and their ilk would be like and how it would function.

Over the years I have read various collectivist utopian novels, particularly those that envisioned ideal communist or socialist societies, and dismissed them as unrealistic fables whose authors had an agenda other than projecting their politics, short-changing their readers on the political and economic facets and means of their tales. Among many such novels, Edward Bellamy’s talky Looking Backward: 2000-1887, published in 1888, was the best of a literally unbelievable lot. The most significant and ominous thing about Bellamy’s novel is that for many years it was a best-seller, trailing behind Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur. It helped to popularize socialism in the U.S.

British Fabian socialist H.G. Wells’ The Shape of Things to Come (1933) is of the Marxist utopian genre, in which a clique of airmen takes over an anarchical world when governments have collapsed after a world war and plague, and is more optimistic than his dystopian novel, The Time Machine (1895). Although Wells predicted some events in Shape of Thingswith startling accuracy, such as WWII and the U.S.’s war with Japan, the novel is unique in that the airmen’s dictatorship eradicates all religions, including Islam, the latter apparently without much fuss.

According to Marxist doctrine, or at least Friedrich Engels’ version of it, socialism, once it has converted everyone into cooperative manqués, would eventually morph into a fully communist state, with the state itself “withering away,” shedding the apparatus of government as a snake sheds its skin. This would happen because society at that point would be driven unconsciously by some Hegelian historical necessity. And then, somehow, beggaring examination of any causo-connections, things would all work out effortlessly.

A Marxist utopia would be classless, of course, having in its aggressive socialist stage extinguished by fair means and foul “plutocrats” and the bourgeoisie. A purely Marxist society would be egalitarian – “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

If food is needed, it would be produced. Somehow. It would be distributed without error or mix-up, somehow. Truly communist farmers would automatically grow an abundance of consumables, and truly communist truckers would distribute them to magical food collection points (“markets” having been abolished).

If steel is needed, somehow it would be produced, and fashioned somehow into a vast catalogue of utilitarian objects. Everything needed for the comfort and leisure of men, from clothing, kitchen ware, power, machines, medical services and so on, would be available – somehow.

But, produced by whom? Well, by the people, naturally, who would automatically fulfill every need. If you’re an average citizen of the stateless republic, you will not need to be told to report to the local steel mill to help turn out ingots and pigs. There would be no state agency or planner overseeing these matters, because the state will have withered away. No one would direct labor to the right places. No one would need to redirect or redistribute capital, either, because that cursed vehicle of the old times, capital, would no longer exist. You would just know that you’re needed, somewhere, somehow.

In fact, money would not exist. Money implies trade, which will have been abolished, as well. Everyone will go around empty-handed, but lack for nothing. Food, clothing, and shelter are all provided to you – somehow.

So, off you trot to the steel mill. Do you know anything about producing steel? Do you have the technical knowledge and the skills to perform the task? Who knows how it happened, but you just have them. That’s the glory of stateless communism. You’re a universal adept. You can do anything the collective requires you to do.

In the former era of universal socialism, many men had to be cajoled or compelled to do things. In the perfect stateless state of communism, they do things “voluntarily,” without prompting. You whistle while you work, as does everyone else, content to work without compensation.

And I could only conclude, in those spare moments, that the perfect communist state must be a society of automatons, all programmed and driven by “historical necessity” and “dialectical materialism,” and that you, the citizen of this stateless society, are but an insensate cipher, a pawn of some power that magically causes all other men to “do the right thing” in frictionless amity. You are a humanoid ant, a manqué, unburdened by a volitional consciousness.

Now, no liberal/leftist/Progressive who can read STOP signs and refrain from seasoning his salads with rat poison believes down, down deep, in such Marxist hokum. No, such a utopia conveniently remains a cloudy, shimmering fantasy in their minds, absent of clear details and particulars, never to be attained. Much destruction must occur first, and that is the primary obsession of the liberal/leftist/Progressives today, to destroy what exists. Of course, those mystical powers of historical necessity need a little help from them. They revel in destruction. Destruction makes them feel useful.

And then came President Barack Hussein Obama. He is a walking vehicle of historical necessity. Or so he thinks, and so think all his supporters and the various claques of liberal/left/Progressives in government and the MSM and advocacy groups. Like everyone else, Obama is imbued with a volitional consciousness, and chooses to do what he does. Which, except when he is on a golf course, is destroy. His purported vision of a transformed America is as chimerical and fantastic as any other collectivist’s. Down, down deep, he knows this.

Today’s liberal/left/Progressives, one suspects, must necessarily dread the dawn of true communism. In such a state, they would have nothing to do. They would be unemployed.

Now, Islam subscribes to a similar fantasy, too, and likewise is minus a clear program of how such a society would actually function and survive. This is the global caliphate that will have brought “peace” to everyone – that is the meaning of Islam being a “religion of peace,” in the same way that the United Nations is touted as an “instrument of peace,” “peace” being something that destructive organization has never accomplished. All men, but most particularly Muslims, will exist in a state of blissful, conflict-free comity.

Non-Muslims will behave themselves and be content with their status as subjugated dhimmis and kaffirs, obedient to the Islamic State and deferential to Muslims in all instances and encounters. They willingly pay the jizya, the Islamic “protection” tax. This impost, if one examines its fundamental purpose, is a literal tax on your existence; non-payment of it will be against Sharia law and cause your subsequent and swift non-existence. It is based on the premise that a Muslim is a first cause, superior to non-believers, and that your existence, as a dhimmi, is dependent on his existence; a curious metaphysics of morals, not dissimilar from the Mafia brand.

Moreover, terrorism and violent jihad will cease in the global Islamic state; this is what tongue-in-cheek, taqiyya-skilled Muslims mean when they say they don’t condone terrorism.

And, as in the liberal/left/Progressive’s fantasy world, things will happen and work will be done and no one will want for anything. Somehow. But, there’s a catch. The liberal/left/Progressive dreams of a post-industrial world that has inherited the standard of living and technological marvels which the industrial, capitalist world made possible, but without any of the repellent social mechanisms, such as trade, property rights, individual rights, and so on.

Islam’s perfect world, on the other hand, tests the imagination. One can project little more than an oligarchy of caliphs and sultans and muftis living luxuriously on the labor of their submissive populations, and answering to some Grand Vizier or Mufti or Caliph. As with the Catholic Pope (who will no longer exist), he will be regarded as Allah’s supreme representative on earth. One can’t see in an Islamic global régime oil tankers, high-speed trains, literature other than Islamic literature, art, advances in medicine, or even skyscrapers, except for the bizarre white elephants erected in Saudi Arabia and the various fiefdoms on the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps those skyscrapers won’t even exist, for they were erected with Sunni oil money (international jizya), and they might be blasted to hot atoms by Iranian (Shi’ite) nuclear missiles.

Unlike the liberal/left/Progressive fantasy world, however, which is expected to exist in perpetuity, Islam proclaims that Allah at one point will call it a day and send in his Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi to announce the end of all things, and to cause the sun to rise in the West. There will be weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth as “good” Muslims are segregated from “bad” Muslims and all dhimmis and infidels are sent immediately to hell. No one will be “left behind” because the earth will cease to exist.

And that is the gist of the equally delusional Islamic notion of utopia.

The “totalities” of the liberal/left/Progressive notion of utopia and those of Islam are fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian. There is no other way of looking at either projected utopia, or, at least, no other way of treating the transitional phase between now and the attainment of those utopias, which is socialism birthing a perpetual heaven on earth on the one hand, and religiously imposed collectivism and some equally ambiguous but temporary heaven on earth, on the other.

Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists love Islam? Why are Islamists not wholly reciprocal in that love, and only grudgingly tolerate them? Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists refuse to identify Islamic doctrine as the cause of terrorist attacks, and demonstrate in their denials contorted states of mind once only attributable to schizophrenics and the mentally ill with multiple personalities?

John Rossomando, in his IPT article of May 24th, “Media Analysts Dodge Jihad Connection in Boston, London,” cites numerous examples of the behavior of politicians, commentators and pundits and how they received the news of the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th and the broad daylight murder of a British soldier in London on May 22nd. Even though the one killer had shouted “Alluha Akbar!” while killing British Army drummer Lee Rigby, and ranted about Islam on camera, they will not blame Islam.

Commentator Michelle Malkin [of Town Hall] was singled out in the Media Matters post for saying the videotaped attacker was “quoting chapter and verse, sura and verse, from the Quran the justification for beheading an innocent solider there, and of course they’ve targeted civilians as well.”…Michael Adebolajo said, “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he says.

Media Matters also called Fox News “Islamophobic” in its coverage of the Lee Rigby murder. Media Matters is funded by billionaire George Soros, who has subsidized a number of anti-Western, anti-American Progressive and leftist blog sites that comport neatly with their Islamic counterparts, such as Al Jazeera.

The New York Timesomitted reference to the attacker’s invocation of Allah, relegating it to page A7. ABC, NBC and CBS similarly omitted the Islamic reference.

Hours after Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s names became public [after the Boston bombing], The Atlantic‘s Megan Garber penned a column titled “The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?” in which she suggested pinning the Muslim label on them reduced them to being “caricatures” and “whitewashed” their humanity.

Rossomando notes in his article the history of how the MSM and others have shied away from blaming Islam for the terrorism, as well as statements by Islamic clerics who advocate the kind of jihad that Lee Rigby was the victim of.

By now, the reader may well have deduced for himself that the reason why the liberal/left/Progressives will not acknowledge that Islam is at the root of these terrorist attacks is that there is an unspoken, almost Freudian symbiosis felt by the liberal/left with Islam, that is, an unarticulated empathy for another totalitarian system. The Progressive Movement, spawned in the late 19th century, made great strides in the 20th with the steady passage of laws that increasingly robbed men of their freedom with arbitrary, fiat law and regulations, until today when there is hardly a human action or product that is not regulated or constrained. This “progress” covers a range of laws from the Income Tax Amendment to mandated nutritional information on food packaging and countless measures in between.

The Progressives – a.k.a. socialists – see Islam, with its head-to-foot regulation of Muslim behavior and existence, as a friend and ally that will help them to vanquish capitalism and Western civilization. That is their mutual end. “Moderate” Muslims assure us that Western precepts of law and freedom can be reconciled with Islam. They cannot. If Islam is doctrinally a totalitarian ideology, it cannot and will not be reconciled with individual rights. Capitalism and freedom do not sanction or advocate the forcible conquest of socialists and collectivists, unless the latter initiate force against the former. Islam and Progressivism do sanction and advocate the initiation of force.

There is a characteristic feature to tyranny. It isn’t the scowling faces of armed guards or the rusting metal of barbed wire fences. It isn’t the black cars of the secret police or the prison camps surrounded by wastelands of snow.

The defining characteristic of tyranny is the diversion of power from the people to the unelected elite. The elite can claim to be inspired by Allah or Marx; it can act in the name of racial purity or universal workers compensation or both. The details don’t matter, because in all instances, tyranny derives its justification from the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of the people.

Progressive Chauvinism is marked by a strong belief in the divine right of their kind to hold all key positions in society for society’s own sake, forcing the “lessers” to comply with superior progressive ways. Believing that their condescension and pity towards the lower beings are a sign of benevolence and compassion, they ignite with righteous anger whenever those ingrates dare be displeased with their enlightened dominion.

The chauvinist attitude, of course, is not limited to the left, but it is characteristic of any expansionist totalitarian ideology throughout history. A force that rivals Progressive Chauvinism in today’s world isIslamic Supremacism – also known to its victims as the “religion of peace.” The attitude is almost identical: in the book of Islamic Supremacism the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Islam.

Islamic Supremacists similarly dream of an ideal, egalitarian society of the future – a global caliphate that will govern over a peaceful world populated by a Muslim majority, while the remaining non-believers would be too intimidated to oppose their Muslim superiors and prefer to pay the jizya – a special Muslim tax on non-believers, or “protection money”- as a condition that they be left in peace.

There is no such thing as “moderate” socialism or Progressivism, either. “Moderate” Progressives are otherwise known as Republicans, who cannot but steadily give ground to the advancing, uncompromising, dyed-in-their-premises Progressives. These watered-down Progressives must yield ground to their more militant and consistent cousins because they cannot think of a single fundamental reason to hold it.

Young John F. Kennedy, touring Germany before WWII, expressed an admiration for the Nazi régime. Remember that “Nazi” was shorthand for “National Socialist.” The Daily Mail reported on a new book coming out that details JFK’s penchant for things totalitarian:

‘Fascism?’ wrote the youthful president-to-be in one. ‘The right thing for Germany.’ In another; ‘What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?’ And on August 21, 1937 – two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out – he wrote: ‘The Germans really are too good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’

And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: ‘The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.’

The future president’s praise is now embarrassing in hindsight – a few years later he fought in World War Two against the Nazis and his elder brother Lt. Joseph Patrick ‘Joe’ Kennedy, Jr. was killed.

And when he became President, JFK formally introduced Fascism, or National Socialism, into the United States. Lyndon B. Johnson, his successor in office, pulled an Otto von Bismarck on the country, and introduced the full-scale welfare state.

Clare Lopez, in her May 24th Gatestone Institute article, “The New, Improved Axis of Jihad,” ends her discussion of how the various jihadist and supremacist organizations have reformed for a more aggressive and organized offensive against the West:

Reportedly, more than 2,000 targets “including public places, government buildings and military installations” already have been selected and cased. Separate but parallel reporting indicates that the “go” order may already have been transmitted from Tehran to the al-Qa’eda and Hizballah cells inside the U.S., placing them essentially on autopilot status. Of course, all of Kahlili’s published warnings have been passed in full detail to U.S. security agencies, but the threat from this Axis of Jihad remains critical and poses a serious threat to America’s homeland security.

Effective measures from America’s national security leadership are urgently needed. Those measures must begin with an honest acknowledgement of the precepts and objectives of the enemy threat —that is, as they are derived from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam—and should include a comprehensive strategic counterjihad plan as complete as the Axis of Jihad’s plan.

The “honest acknowledgement” Lopez refers to is an acknowledgement that Islam is an ideology whose doctrine, laws, and scriptures are as antithetical to freedom – and indeed to life – as were the doctrines, laws, and precepts of Nazism and Communism. But politically correct mindsets in government have not only emasculated any effective measures against the Islamic onslaught, but also have emboldened the killers. States that sponsor terrorism must be ended, and that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until then, Americans and Westerners will be at the mercy of their killers.

Islamic “culture” is root and branch antithetical to freedom. It requires submission not only of one’s physical body, but of one’s mind. Secular totalitarians who have bothered to examine the character and tenets of Islam see this and appreciate it. One could say that our wannabe overseers are so jealous of the totalitarian nature of Islam that they wish it well, and are eager to ally itself with a system that ultimately must eradicate them, too, along with non-believers, recalcitrant infidels, and apostates.

It is a jealousy sired by envy, as well, of the thoroughness with which Islam converts individuals into obedient, selfless serfs in mind and body, something which liberal/left/Progressives have found difficult to achieve in their best Marxist and fascist indoctrination and propaganda efforts.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Palestinians are a jihad movement created out of political reasons, and motivated by a 1,400 year religious Islamic racist war that seeks to exterminate Jewish people.

There are two main extreme and racially related conflicts that keep flaring up as an endless source of militant attacks by Muslims through history: The Sunni-Shia division where Sunni’s seek to overtake and kill Shiites, and the Muslim-Jewish conflict where Muslims strive to eliminate all Jews.

There was no “Palestinians” in Transjordan when the British assigned the area back to the Jews in 1917. Palestinians are a creation by militant leader and Nazi collaborator Amin Al-Husseini. Al-Husseini was the son of the Ottoman Grand Mufti being permitted to remain in Jerusalem after the removal of Ottoman occupiers. As a religious head Amin Al-Husseini was an extremist and hate preacher, called “very cruel and callous” even by fellow Arabs.

Palestinians are from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. When Al-Husseini’s jihadis flooded into Israel in huge numbers as a sudden flash mob, the fighters from Egypt ended up in Gaza as Israeli’s fought back and block them progressing further into the new land. The Saudi arm of the “Palestinian” jihadi’s ended up in the West Bank. As this mass invasion expanded it also began to include jihad initiatives from other Arab countries in the Middle East.

Al-Husseini’s traditional Muslim racism against the Jews – instructed onto Muslim by prophet Mohammed - took even more extreme form when he tried to form alliances with Italy, Russia, Germany, Britain and France in a unified effort to exterminate all Jews; a Muslim dream. Al-Husseini used to usual tool created from the time of Mohammed to build alliances: endless propaganda that would portray violent Muslim invaders as victims while painting the true victims of Muslim aggression as untrustworthy plotters and villains. Through these efforts and endless publications translated into many languages, Al-Husseini created the fabricated concept behind the book “Elders of Zion” (a Russian military war propaganda tied in with the Muslim alliance).

Although Britain, France, Italy and Russia were reluctant to join this alliances for a total extermination and genocide of an entire people, Hitler and his Nazi party found friendship with Al-Husseini and formed an alliance that would set a plan to target Jewish people. This is when Hitler started to persecute Jews. It is noteworthy that prior to this friendship with Al-Husseini Hitler had actually no plan or outline to create a holocaust or target Jews in any particular way. It tells us that the actual force that prompted the Nazi’s came from Muslims. The holocaust was drafted on the format of the Armenian genocide – the Muslim genocide of over 4 million Christians in Turkey. No acknowledgement, compensation or apology has ever been given to the surviving victims of the genocide on Christians.

How to Verify?

In this sea of propaganda created by Palestinians, how can you verify these claims for yourself to find evidence that “Palestinians” are a political creation and illegal occupants in both Gaza and the West Bank?

It’s actually quite simple.

A. Timeline. A careful study of the timeline and pairing Muslim activity in the region as the events unfolded gives a clearer picture of events.

B. The British kept census records from the British Mandate and Transjordan long before 1917 when it was re-assigned back to the Jews, after all of their land had been invaded and occupied by Muslims leaving them basically completely stateless all over the world. Anyone can research the census records and see how the Muslim population rapidly grew when the jihad plans were put into operation. This would demonstrate that the “Palestinians” are a fabricated people and are actually militant occupiers created solely out of political and religious motives.

C. A third way in which the “Palestinian” fabrications can be laid bare is by calculating the population growth versus the death rate. The average birth rate per “Palestinian” woman is 6 children. Had the “Palestinians” had an actual authentic presence in the region their present day population would have been enormous. The Egyptian invaders lodged in Gaza are now 1.657 million (2011) in number while the mainly Saudi population lodged in the West Bank are 1.715 million (2010 census) in numbers. This proves that the population growth actually began to take place only after Amin Al-Husseini’s forces mass occupied the region mainly after 1935 – and the population growth correlates to this fact.

D. A fourth source is the testimonies given by many former “Palestinians” and even PLO and Hamas leaders, which are available through videos and audio clips.

E. A study of the Nazi’s and their strategies and decisions, the meetings Hitler held with Al-Husseini and the timeline of these events.

It is now time to end this Muslim occupation of Jewish land, and the 1,400 racist Muslim persecution of Jews that has been relentless and continuous without a single break for all these years since the birth of prophet Mohammed.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's announcement of the creation of an Islamic Caliphate reveals a sense of hopelessness. His proclamation was strongly ideological, but to usher in this new era of a worldwide caliphate, he had to overturn an entire area: not in Syria, where ISIS will probably be wiped out by Bashar Assad's army, but in Iraq's weak underbelly, the Sunni area where the government did not have a strong army. And there he drew a halt and issued this presumptuous statement.

The very fact they no longer refer to themselves as "ISIS" in which the words "Iraq and Syria" were present, but simply "Islamic State", as if it were a global entity, is ridiculous from the practical point of view. At the same time, it reveals the ideological dimension of the project to restore the caliphate of Baghdad, regarded as the most brilliant period of Islam.

But the majority of Muslims no longer dream of the caliphate, nor an empire without borders.

Most are simply attempting to live in a nation, so much so, that for years now the Kurds have been attempting to give birth to their own independent nation.

1. The end of the Caliphate and the birth of the "Muslim Brotherhood"

The end of the Caliphate dates back to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. On 1 November 1922, he deposed the Sultan Mehmet VI, and 18 days after Abdülmecid Efendi was elected Caliph, for a short period. Ataturk founded the Republic on October 29, 1923 and after being elected president, proclaimed the definitive abolition of the Islamic Caliphate on March 3, 1924.

This symbolic decision was a shock to the entire Islamic world. Especially following the decisions taken by Ataturk, particularly the secularization of the state and the de-Islamization of society: equality of the sexes; prohibition of the use of the Islamic veil in public places; prohibition of the fez and the turban; ban on beards for public officials; adoption of the Latin alphabet in place of Arabic; the Gregorian calendar year instead of the Hegira; of Sunday as a public holiday; of the metric system, etc..

Since then, many groups have tried to revive the caliphate. In 1928, a project led by the Imam Hassan al-Banna azharita Rashid Rida, gave birth to the "Muslim Brotherhood" with the precise purpose of restoring the caliphate. After pro-longed discussion and a series of studies into the feasibility of establishing a new caliphate in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they themselves concluded that "it is no longer possible to have a caliphate" and changed course: we need to Islamize the various countries and governments, introducing sharia as our constitution. This was especially successful in Saudi Arabia, which does not have a constitution, just sharia. In other countries, legislation was enacted "inspired" by sharia. Nowadays, it is well-known that the majority of Muslim countries, especially the developed countries, are not headed in this direction and do not apply sharia as an ideal.

2. Who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Like all Muslim terrorists, the new "Caliph" has a new "war name". He is no longer called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. His real name is Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai, who was born in Samarra in 1971. His full name of war is: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Husseini al-Qurashi.

This name, for any educated Muslim, is already a program in itself. Abu Bakr is the name (or more precisely the kunyah) of the first caliph, that is, of Muhammad's first successor. Al-Baghdadi evokes the period's most famous Islamic caliphate, the Abbasid, whose capital was Baghdad (750-1258). Al-Husseini refers to Hussein, son of Ali and Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, the most revered figures in Shiite Islam. Finally, al-Qurashi, refers to the tribe of Mohammed, originally from Quraysh. According to a hadith the legitimate caliph must be a descendant of Muhammad. The latter two names (two nisbah) mean that he is the rightful caliph par excellence, which satisfies both Sunnis and Shiites.

3. The Caliphate, the dream in the midst of a Muslim world in turmoil

The caliphate is a dream, and refers to the Caliphate of Baghdad, the Abbasid caliphate. It is no coincidence that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is Iraqi. He has tried to implement this project before with al-Qaida, but had to break away from it. The other fundamentalist groups have broken away from him and fought him in Syria. Indeed, almost all governments have decided to fight him: Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq ... his only remaining allies are the oil nations - Qatar and others - because they share his idea of the caliphate, but to create diversions, distractions in the Arab world .

In any case, the caliphate no longer responds to what the Arab Muslims seek. Even Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - the majority of which is by no means terrorist despite being quashed by the new Al Sissi government - have disavowed him.

Those familiar with al Baghdadi say he is not capable of leading a great movement and is unable to get along with anyone. With the little support he receives, it is very possible that his ambitious plan to conquer the world will end in nothing. The only thing that the Islamic Army (IA) possesses is strength: its militants would be nothing without the weapons that the oil countries and the West have given them. But these weapons cannot withstand an army. The IA looks like the victor because it attacks easy targets, regions weakened by the last three years of war and terrorism. They also dreamed of taking Libya, but nobody followed them.

4. The decline of the Arab world

In any case, the proclamation of the Caliphate shows where the Islamic world is heading. Three conclusions emerge from al-Baghdadi's proclamation: first, "We want to restore the greatness of Islam"; Second, "the West has reduced the Islamic world to nothing, killing people, making widows ..."; third, "we will forcibly take back our leadership".

This is the typical mythical discourse of the fundamentalists: first we were very good, then we were depleted, now we will regain power by force.Here's how Abu Bakr depicts the decline of the Islamic world in his tirade:

"The Islamic Ummah seeks your jihad with hope. Your brothers in many parts of the world are being inflicted with the worst forms of torture. Their honor is violated and their blood is shed. Prisoners are moaning and screaming for help. The orphans and widows lament their fate. Women who have lost their babies cry. Mosques are desecrated and shrines are violated. The Islamic nation awaits your jihad with hope. You have brothers in all the corners of the earth who are suffering: in China, India, Palestine, Somalia, Arabian Peninsula, Caucasus, the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Philippines, Ahwaz, Iran, Pakistan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Morocco, both in the East and in the West ... ".

He began with a very acceptable observation: the decline of the Arab and Islamic world, recognized by intellectuals and people from all walks of life. It is enough to compare any given Muslim nation and a Western counterpart in the arena of economics, politics, human rights, justice, social life, care for the weak and the poor, to see that the Islamic world is in the midst of a period of decline. Even where we have billions and are richer than anyone (think of the Arabian oil), the educational level is very low and the contribution to world civilization is null!

This is where the seeds of the dream are born. This dream of rebirth, however, finds no support in wealthy Muslim nations, the oil countries, uninterested in any integral human development. Reflecting on this, the Arab world must recognize the following: we have money, but it is the hands of a few; we have the numbers, with hundreds of millions of people, but we only know how to make war.

5. Rebuilding a culture of openness

In fact, the only way to regain our dignity is to culturally reconstruct our concept of the Arab and Muslim person, to rethink the laws we apply to human rights, to strengthen them and move in the direction of an open culture, which sympathizes with the whole world. Instead we see the spread of a culture of division, which is a step backwards.

We should look at the Abbasid Caliphate and ask ourselves: where did its greatness stem from? It came from the union of all parts of the ancient Muslim empire. From the cultural point of view more than the Arabs, the Iranians, Afghans, Balkh, Syriac-speaking Christians have contributed to its greatness... It was an open vision that gave space to all, all the while giving priority to the Arab Islamic world.Today's culture is based on the human rights of the people and solidarity between peoples. And what do we do? We try to justify and regress to a way of life from the past (seventh century), typical of a Bedouin desert region: this cannot be a solution for the twenty-first century.

6. Islam's ideological error

The Islamic world's error is an ideological one. It leads to ideological wars: cultural, religious, historical, but never based on the real needs of the people.

The Arab people seek solutions to basic needs; equality between men and women; between Muslims and non-Muslims; rich and poor (the poor in the Arab world have never had a voice!).

Instead of taking the best of modern civilization and assimilating it, we try to find the solution by going backwards.

The cause of this error is ideological, but the West is also partly responsible: it must improve relations with the Arab world. We see the West as an immoral place, without values. It is partly true. The West is seen as the global leader, but it uses weapons and the law of the fittest to impose its dominion. Looking at these elements, the Muslim world rejects the Western project, as too "human", and hopes in a "divine plan" that is sharia.

In reality, Sharia law has nothing "divine" about it: it is the sedimentation of Bedouin tribal rules from the ninth and tenth centuries, and has nothing to do with the Koran, which dates to the seventh century, or with the Prophet Muhammad.

Unfortunately, although this idea is shared by most of the population, the political leaders, especially the richer ones, continue to keep alive the idea of Sharia law as something "holy", defending the Bedouin and the desert culture, in so far as they are descendants of that era. But they are not and will never be a model for the Muslim world.

7. Israel, Islam and the "conspiracy" theory

The crisis in the Islamic world was exacerbated with the establishment of the State of Israel, an unfair creation because born in the territory of another State that bore absolutely no responsibility for the Holocaust. The defeat of 1948 and then in 1967 showed the extent to which the Arab world (and the Islamic world) was late, and sparked all the Arab revolutions and the animosity towards the West, as well as the hatred for Israel (and for some against Jews and Christians).

But this creation is now a historical fact and there is no turning back. To usher in any hope of increased international cooperation, we have to work for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This entails, for both Israelis and Palestinians, the decision to seek a just - though never perfect - solution, because both have been wronged, but both have also inflicted injury.

Faced with this military-political situation, many of us see the hand of Israel (and the U.S.) in everything that happens in the Middle East. Even in the creation of the IA, which many suspect is an attempt to divide the Arab world and reshuffle the cards in the region.

I do not support this "conspiracy" theory because it weakens us even more by removing all responsibility for our misfortune from our shoulders. And if this theory is true, then we are nothing more than stupid Arabs: in the end who wages the wars in the region, in the Arab world? We do. And even if we let ourselves be duped so easily, our responsibility would remain.

The fact that this division of the Arab and Islamic world strengthens to those who are enemies of the Arab world, is evident. But fostering division and war is bad politics because it eliminates peace for all, even for Israel. Israel will continue to expropriate territories from the Palestinians, but in doing so it will soon mean that Israelis and Palestinians will eventually be swallowed up within the one state, thus the warring factions will end up becoming a domestic problem. The only way forward is collaboration.

The adherents to the "conspiracy" theory accuse the United States and some European countries of facilitating this genocide inside the Islamic world. Again, the fault is ours. The problem began among ourselves in Syria because the government of Damascus, as well as dictatorial, is a government of the Alawite minority. A political and social problem internal to Syria, has turned into a religious war between Sunnis and Shiites, a war that dates back to the seventh century!

However, the solution proposed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi also dates back to the seventh century, when Muhammad set about fighting all the Arab tribes who did not believe in God (and his mission), organizing more than sixty raids (= Ghazwa) in a ten years (622-632) according to the oldest biography of the Prophet of 'Islam, Kitâb al-Maghâzî ("Book of History and Campaigns"), by al-Wâqidî.

Conclusion: Rebuilding Arab society with shared values

If you really want to rebuild the Arab society, a few fundamental choices are needed:

1. We Arabs must learn to live together on the basis of shared values, without going to war because of religious differences. And secondly, we need to think about solidarity in the countries and the region. It is unacceptable that there are super-rich Arabs and people struggling to survive and these differences encourage wars.

2. At another level, regional collaboration is needed, especially with Israel, for peace with the Palestinians. Every step towards peace in this sense may also facilitate relations with the West.

3. Another urgency is that Arab nations must prepare constitutions inspired by justice, equality, human rights, peace, without making any distinction between the sexes or religions.

4. Finally, societies need to eradicate corruption. Our countries are drowning in corruption. In Egypt, for instance, many people do not go to the hospital because they know that every service, even the most simple, requires a small bribe. For surgery, a daily pill, an injection you have to pay, otherwise you will not receive any care!

The caliphate has none of these 4 principles. So it will not succeed, indeed it will only reinforce discrimination based on standards established more than 1000 years ago. The vast majority of Muslims want to live according to true and current values; only the Salafists want to go back to the Middle Ages!

The solution is to enter into a vision of international inter-Arabian collaboration, to build a new civilization, incorporating the positive elements of modernity and the values contained in Islamic tradition. If the Arab world fails to do so, it will only regress, and - what is worse - it will do so in the name of religion, namely Islam. The time has come to save Islam, by fighting against religious fanaticism.

Monday, July 14, 2014

The present crisis in Gaza is being reported as if Israel is bombing unarmed Palestinians as they pray in their mosques totally unaware of war. The fact that the terrorist organization Hamas is encouraging Palestinians to offer themselves as human shields to protect the buildings that house the missiles they fire into Israel usually doesn’t survive the final edit. Even though I can only offer a drop in the massive bucket of media mayhem, I need to weigh in. I have restrained myself from writing since Israel started Operation Protective Edge and instead have been praying for peace. However, after watching major media outlets act as though they are the official Hamas news agency, I must respond to what I consider to be nothing short of journalistic jihad.

Jihad (English pronunciation: Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād ), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the wordjihād translates as a noun meaning “struggle.”

While Hamas attempts to annihilate Israel in the arena of war, an army of journalists has joined their cause in the arena of public opinion. They are launching a barrage of messages 24 hours a day, 7 days a week aimed at promoting a perception of the land, language, people, and even the God of Israel that they hope justifies jihad (struggle).

I am thankful to Breaking Israel News for giving me a platform to write from a biblical perspective. Some of us see what is happening in the world through biblical lenses, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable that might be for many people. So when I came across this passage in the book of Amos the prophet who lived in Tekoa—you know, the place called a “settlement” in the West Bank, before it was ever called the West Bank—I was inspired to write.

“So I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza, and it will consume her citadels” (Amos 1:7, NASB).

Can you imagine the outcry that will be heard from the international peacekeeping organizations and the major media outlets when Amos’ prophecy comes to pass in Gaza? I can see the headlines now:

“Gaza in Flames,” “Loss of Life Mounting in Gaza,” “Mosques Destroyed by Fire,” “United Nations Calling for War Crimes Against God,” blah, blah, blah! Go ahead, get creative and imagine with me what will be said on that day by those who will join in the journalistic jihad against God’s righteous judgment.

More than likely it will parallel today’s journalism in which little time and energy are spent on the background of the conflict. The news agencies won’t dig into the depths of the disobedience of those who started the war. There will certainly be little interest in the words found within the pages of Scripture that lay out the reasons for the wrath from above and the context of the chaos that will be on the ground in Gaza.

“Thus says the Lord, ‘For three transgressions of Gaza and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom’” (Amos 1:6, NASB).

Now if I wanted to get creative I could make a parallel proclamation of the reasons for the war being waged right now in Gaza. “For three transgressions of Hamas (Eyal, Gilad, and Naftali) and for four (Mohammed Karaka) Israel has said enough is enough!” Not to mention that even as I write Israeli citizens are living under a barrage of hundreds of rockets that continue to be launched with the hopes of driving an entire population from their God-given land. But that sort of creative biblical interpretation would probably get me labeled as a “right-wing extremist” who is using the exegesis of Scripture for a personal agenda. So I will refrain.

Maybe more journalists should take a peek into the Scriptures to see that the word Hamas is translated into English as violence before they enter into jihad (struggle) with an organization that is committed to destroying Israel and much more.

“If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword; He has bent His bow and made it ready. He has also prepared for Himself deadly weapons; He makes His arrows fiery shafts. Behold, he travails with wickedness, and he conceives mischief and brings forth falsehood. He has dug a pit and hollowed it out, and has fallen into the hole which he made. His mischief will return upon his own head, and his violence [Hamas] will descend upon his own pate” (Psalms 7:12-16, NASB).

As Israel struggles to defend itself against terrorists groups like Hamas (violence), aided by an army of reporters waging journalistic jihad (struggle), it is my hope and prayer that she will continue to have the courage to provide protection for her people no matter how it is reported.